Is this a simpler way of considering reality physics?

A simple physics description of universal reality and how it might theoretically work in the manner that it does

A] The Planck line separates quantum from sub-quantum phenomena. It represents the smallest material phenomena that physicists can detect and measure.

B] Below the Planck line is where Quantum Mechanics theory steps in [all the weird things that are known to happen in physics such as that all things and events are somehow connected to each other and acts as though the Universe has its own consciousness and can think].

C] The dotted lines below Quantum Mechanics [B as illustrated above] are representational of things and events that are more weird than those things happening in the universe than those occurring at the Quantum Mechanics level. This lower level physics is the deepest level of physics and is sometimes referred to by Physicists as being informational physics. Human consciousness and intuition might be seen to be as examples of phenomena at this level.

D] Above the Planck line (A) is the quantum and the atomic levels of physics where things and events can be observed and measured. These levels embrace materialist [meaning observable and testable] objects and movement. For example these include various effects of movement as described in Einstein’s theories.

E] Quantum theory includes phenomena entitled non-locality [entanglement theory]. Non-locality embraces and influences and effects all things and events in both the quantum [D level in the above diagram] as well as those at the B and C level in the same diagram. [The C level might be considered to be the “home” of non-locality].

At least three models of unity physics are thought by physicists to work along the lines of what I have described (Cahill, Hiley-Bohm and Freeman).

Do you care to know more about the highly important Global Consciousness Project [GCP]?

Does this blog provide a pointer to the mysterious side of the human mind?

In my opinion the most significant section of this video presentation commences at the 38 minute mark [more especially from the 40 minute mark]. This section relates to the employment of a random event generator.

The video

If you care to know more about the Global Consciousness Project [GCP] I have provided you with two links:

Link 1

Link 2

I also think my readers should acquaint themselves with this link because it provides a scientific pointer as to how consciousness [I say awareness] may exist outside of our bodies. Readers should also note that the United States government is taking a serious interest in this project. If the sub-quantum physics theory is one day confirmed this means that alleged out of body experiences and phenomena such as ghosts should be taken more seriously.

I care to talk about entanglement

In physics quantum entanglement suggests that phenomena are somehow connected to each other, and furthermore, under certain conditions influence each other

My purpose in writing this blog is to attempt to more clearly identify and describe what quantum entanglement may be. I present you with the following information in an attempt to demonstrate to my readers what I consider to be the different interpretations of entanglement in science. It is my opinion that the most popular scientific definitions of entanglement are incomplete (where did it come from?). For my readers I will outline what I think are the most common interpretations of quantum entanglement.

1] A simple explanation of quantum entanglement

2] Wikipedia definition

3] Proof that entanglement a is valid hypothesis

4] A video pertinent to entanglement

5] My views about quantum non-locality are as follows. I believe that both these scientific concepts cannot be effectively separated. Some physicists say that non-locality describes entanglement:

Entanglement implies that information is either shared between two particles or communicated between them in such a way as to cause observations of one particle to be correlated with observations of the other.

Such correlations have been predicted and observed for many years, but it has been difficult to determine if the correlations were caused by information being shared such as through gravity.

Non-locality implies the existence of direct connections between one point in space and another, without going through intervening points. Such direct connections would allow communication faster than the speed of light.

As I suggested above there can be different manifestations of non-locality. One of these is Newton’s force of gravity is theoretically non-local because it theoretically propagates at infinite speed. This is what I believe is happening via the physics model that I have described in another blog entitled Reality with a Matrix

I have written a specific blog wherein I discuss the duality of all that “IS”. with respect to non-locality and sub quantum mechanics theory.

[Item 5 was written with the assistance of M.P.]

Profiles of scientists that I respect and sometimes quote

Below you will find two sets of references that have also played an important role in how I have gone about writing much of my scientific work

6.1 Prof. Roger Penrose

6.2 Prof. Karl H. Pribram

6.3 Prof. David Bohm

6.4 Prof. Rupert Sheldrake

6.5 Prof. Antony Valentini

6.6 Prof. Reg Cahill

6.7 Prof. Richard Amoroso

6.8 Prof. Benoit Mandelbrot

6.9 Prof. Richard Feynman

6.10 Prof. Benjamin Walker

6.11 Prof. Basil Hiley

Reference one:

Important primary material that I have referred to as I have been developing my Primordial Awareness model of reality

Reference two:

Important secondary material that I have incorporated into my science writings

A comparison of three models of reality physics

Apart from insignificant technical issues all three models are much the same

If you are interested in the Awareness model I urge you to peruse the contents of this blog together with another blog entitled: “The Awareness model of physics“. this is together with its associated links. This blog is one part of a three part nexus relating to a unity statement that I have made.

Comparison of Three Models of Reality


The process of observation in atomic physics has shown that the subatomic particles have no meaning as isolated entities

I strongly urge you to peruse the ideas of Fritjof Capra in his book “Tao of Physics”

I have copied and pasted a section of his ideas for you to consider.

Fritjof Capra on Physics & Quantum Theory


“A careful analysis of the process of observation in atomic physics has shown that the subatomic particles have no meaning as isolated entities, but can only be understood as interconnections between the preparation of an experiment and the subsequent measurement. Quantum theory thus reveals a basic oneness of the universe. The mathematical framework of quantum theory has passed countless successful tests and is now universally accepted as a consistent and accurate description of all atomic phenomena. The verbal interpretation, on the other hand, i.e. the metaphysics of quantum theory, is on far less solid ground. In fact, in more than forty years physicists have not been able to provide a clear metaphysical model. (Capra, 1975)

The Metaphysics of Space and Motion and the Wave Structure of Matter now provides this ‘clear metaphysical model’. A significant problem has been the conception of the ‘particle’ and thus the resulting paradox of the ‘particle / wave’ duality. These problems have caused great confusion within modern physics over the past seventy years, as Heisenberg, Davies and Capra explain;

Both matter and radiation possess a remarkable duality of character, as they sometimes exhibit the properties of waves, at other times those of particles. Now it is obvious that a thing cannot be a form of wave motion and composed of particles at the same time – the two concepts are too different. (Heisenberg, 1930)

The idea that something can be both a wave and a particle defies imagination, but the existence of this wave-particle “duality” is not in doubt. .. It is impossible to visualize a wave-particle, so don’t try. … The notion of a particle being “everywhere at once” is impossible to imagine. (Davies, 1985)

The question which puzzled physicists so much in the early stages of atomic theory was how electromagnetic radiation could simultaneously consist of particles (i.e. of entities confined to a very small volume) and of waves, which are spread out over a large area of space. Neither language nor imagination could deal with this kind of reality very well. (Capra, The Tao of Physics, p56)

The solution to this apparent paradox is to simply explain how the discrete ‘particle’ properties of matter and light (quanta) are in fact caused by Spherical Standing Waves (Scalar Quantum Waves not Electromagnetic Vector Waves) which cause the Particle effect at their Wave-Center. For a more detailed explanation please see Quantum Theory: Particle Wave Duality.”

Unravelling a difficult physics paradox is not an easy task

About the Tolman paradox and an associated  comparison between Lorentzian Relativity and Einstein’s theory of Special Relativity

Around four years ago I read a physics paper written by Moses Fayngold entitled “A possible resolution of the Tolman Paradox as a Quantum Superposition”. Both the topic as well as the depth of ideas Fayngold employed to assemble his paper fascinated me. I could only understand snippets to what the author was talking about. I then passed the document along to a respected retired scientist  (MFP) to help me to work through and better understand the item.

The paper reference is

(In case the above link is lost The Fayngold essay is also attached to this blog in the pdf file below).

On 7/Jan/2013 I sent an email to MFP regarding this matter. This was his response:

MFP said in response to my email which read was


“As a layperson I find this article interesting. Obviously I only understand mere snippets of it but I have zeroed on to the closing sentence that “… QM could be nature’s device against violations of relativistic causality” My question to you is has this author a point?


MFP’s response


“…thanks. This is very interesting and it is actually a new paper (1104 means 2011 04, ie April 2011).  But his argument is in relationship to the claims of Special Relativity. For the benefit of both of us I will try to explain.

Prior to Special Relativity, people assumed that light waves traveled through a medium (eg ether, or Cahill’s dynamical 3-space) at a fixed speed ‘c’. That implied that if you were moving through the medium at say speed v, then the speed of light waves relative to yourself would be c + v if you were headed into the waves, or c-v if you were headed away and being overtaken by the waves.

This in turn implied that people could determine the speed of the earth through the “ether” by measuring the speed of light in different directions. If they got a maximum speed say of c+v in one direction, and a minimum of c-v in the opposite direction, then the earth would have a speed of v relative to the ether.

Such an experiment was done by Michelson and Morley in 1887, however it gave a value for v of only about 8 km/s. Now since the earth was known to have an orbital speed around the sun of about 30 km/s, its speed through the ether would have to be at least as fast as that, so something appeared to be wrong.

In response to this, a theory was developed that motion through the ether caused matter to contract along its direction of motion and caused its internal physical processes to slow down, in such a way as to cause laboratory instruments to always measure the speed of light as being equal c, even if in reality it differed from c. This became known as Lorentzian Relativity Theory and it implied that it might be completely impossible to experimentally detect motion of matter relative to ether.

However, Cahill argues that if laboratory instruments get distorted by motion through ether, then to get the true value of v, one needs to multiply the experimentally determined value of 8 km/s by a scale factor, which then gives a value of about 400 km/s, which accounts for the orbital velocity of the earth plus the velocity of the sun as it orbits our galaxy etc. See:

The Michelson and Morley 1887 Experiment and the Discovery of Absolute Motion

However, if one assumes, as most physicists came to do, that motion of matter relative ether can not be experimentally detected, then it should be possible to make the same predictions as Lorentzian Relativity, using simpler equations that don’t include terms related to velocity through ether.

That is, it should be possible to develop a mathematically simpler alternative to Lorentzian Relativity that would work just as well for practical purposes.

This was achieved by Einstein’s theory of Special Relativity, which became popular because of its greater simplicity.

However, by leaving out the ether, Special Relativity allows paradoxes to arise such as Tolman’s paradox, which I will try to illustrate in a simple way.

Suppose we have observers A and B each with physically identical clocks.

And suppose A is at rest in ether and that B brushes past A and then away from A at a speed through the ether that causes B’s clock to run at half speed.

Then according to Lorentzian Relativity, A can say that the motion of B through the ether causes B’s clock to run at half speed relative to A’s clock and B can agree that this is so.

However, for the same situation Special Relativity asserts that A can say that the motion of B relative to A causes B’s clock to run at half speed relative to A’s clock but that since there is no ether, B has an equal right to say that the motion of A relative to B causes A’s clock to run at half speed relative to B’s clock.

At first sight this appears a ridiculous contradiction, but in practice, it is not possible for A and B to compare the times shown by their clocks without sending signals to each other and it turns out that if the signals do not exceed the speed of light, inconsistencies do not arise when comparisons are made. So because we currently have no way to send signals faster than light,  A and B are each entitled to claim that his own clock is running normally and that it is the clock of the other that is slow and there is no practical way to prove that either is wrong.

But, suppose it was possible for each observer to remotely stop the clock of the other using a signal of infinite speed?

Eg suppose at the instant that B brushes past A, A and B zero their clocks, and then after two seconds A stopped B’s clock and then in response B stopped A’s clock. What would be the result?

Lorentzian Relativity theory predicts that when A stops B’s clock, B’s clock will only be showing a time of one second because it runs at half  the rate of A’s clock. And when B stops A’s clock in response to that, A’s clock will  be showing a time of two seconds, because from B’s point of view, A’s clock runs at twice the speed of B’s clock.  This is also what A would expect, because it would take zero time for a signals of infinite speed to travel from A to B and back to A again. So A would expect his clock to stop as soon as he stops B’s clock.

So Lorentzian Relativity predicts a logically consistent result.

In contrast…

Special relativity theory predicts that when A stops B’s clock, B’s clock will only be showing a time of one second because it runs at half  the rate of A’s clock. But when B stops A’s clock in response to that, A’s clock will only be showing a time of half of a second because from B’s point of view, A’s clock runs at half the speed of B’s clock.

But if A’s clock stops when it is showing only half a second, it could never get to two seconds to allow A to send the signal to stop B’s clock !

So in this example, Special Relativity results in paradox if we consider signals that travel at infinite speed. (The paradox can also arise if the signal speed is less than infinite but greater than the speed of light, but that is more difficult to reason about).

For people who prefer Special Relativity, the usual way to avoid this paradox is to assume that it is impossible for anything to travel faster than light, because if anything could do so, it could be used to send signals between observers such as A and B. That rules out tachyons so far as such people are concerned.

However, the paper you referenced suggests another way to avoid the paradox. The argument seems to be like this.

Suppose we assume that two versions of A (and his clock) can exist in a state of superposition, eg A1 and A2. Then when the clock of A1 shows two seconds, A1 sends a an infinitely fast signal to stop B’s clock. B then sends an infinitely fast signal to stop A’s clock which owing to the claims of Special Relativity arrives when A’s clock shows half a second. This would result in a paradox if it stopped the clock of A1, but thanks to the existence of A2, this signal can stop the clock of A2 rather than the clock of A1.

However, the situation of having two versions of A in superposition cannot continue for ever. At some point, one or other of the states must end up as the one that is observed to be real. If A1 is manifested, then A sent a signal to stop B’s clock, but did not receive a signal back to stop his clock, so that signal was in effect lost in quantum noise. If A2 is manifested, then A received a signal from B to stop his clock, but did not send a signal to stop B’s clock so the signal that stopped B’s clock was in effect spontaneously generated by quantum noise.

So this method of avoiding the paradox allows signals (eg using tachyons) that are faster than light, but does not allow such signals to be used for reliable communication.

On the other hand, as illustrated above, Lorentzian Relativity does not result in paradoxes when we consider signals (eg using tachyons) that move faster then light so adopting Lorentzian Relativity instead of Special Relativity provides a simpler way to avoid the paradox.


tachyons and superposition pdf